BALTIMORE – Right now, without getting up from your chair or leaving your home, you can search and view court records related to the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Minnesota courts offer online access to a plethora of documents, such as complaints, arrest warrants and jury verdicts.
But in Maryland it’s a different story.
For example, if you want to view court documents related to the 2015 death of Freddie Gray after his arrest by police, you will only find general case information online, such as party names, case open or closed status, and case types. charges against officers – but no charging documents. To obtain more detailed information, you must visit the courthouse during business hours or submit a public records request.
Advocates for access to the courts and journalists tout the benefits of allowing the public to watch trials remotely. They say this increases transparency and allows for timely reporting of newsworthy events.
But court administrators and some Maryland attorneys are urging caution, noting that remote access could make it more difficult to protect confidential information that is accidentally left unredacted, such as Social Security numbers. Some critics also say a move to remote public access could increase the court’s administrative costs, while others say this is not necessarily the case.
Currently, remote electronic access to court cases in Maryland is only available to attorneys and parties in the case, according to the recently completed statewide integration of Maryland Electronic Court, or MDEC, last May. For the general public, the State of Maryland offers Judiciary Case Search, which allows searches by name, date and county. The database only provides basic information about a case, not detailed cost documents or complaints.
A public information officer for the Maryland Judiciary did not respond in June when asked about the possibility of remote public access to electronic court records.
MDEC was an “important step” toward increasing online, public access to court cases, said Fritz Mulhauser, a member of the board of directors of the Council for Court Excellence, which aims to improve the justice system in Washington, D.C. improve.
But Mulhauser and other advocates of court transparency are critical of the remaining restrictions on remote public access — calling it “practical ambiguity.”
“The Supreme Court – and other courts – have felt squeamish in allowing ‘yum surfers’ to freely search court records from their basements, rummaging through divorce files and convictions of their colleagues, neighbors and relatives,” says David Cuillier of the Brechner. Freedom of Information Project, in an email. “So they’ve said if you really want to see the documents, you have to trudge down to the courthouse and make the effort to look for them.”
The effort to expand access to court records is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit in Maryland filed in U.S. District Court. Courthouse News Service, a California-based organization, sued the state court administrator and clerks of the state of Maryland in 2022, alleging they violated the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by failing to provide simultaneous access to public court cases , and in particular to new civil complaints.
Both sides filed a lawsuit in late October saying they had reached an “agreement” in the case, but no details have been released.
When it comes to criminal cases, a handful of Maryland attorneys have expressed varying degrees of support for remote access, while also emphasizing the need to shield sensitive information such as bank accounts and Social Security numbers.
In a June interview, Democrat Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger expressed concern that victims of gang violence and sex crimes would expose their personal information online if Maryland adopted remote access to court records. He said there is no “guarantee” this won’t happen. to happen.
But if people’s personal information is protected, then remote access is “certainly something I can get behind,” Shellenberger said in an interview later that month.
A recent analysis by the Federal Judicial Center, a US government agency, examined how often Social Security numbers appear in federal court files. It found that of the nearly 4.7 million documents submitted on 37 randomly selected days, 0.1% had at least one unupdated Social Security number. Seventeen documents contained almost half of the unredacted Social Security numbers.
Restricting access to public records based on a very small percentage of documents where sensitive information is inadvertently disclosed is not good public policy, says Josh Blandi of UniCourt, a platform that provides access to trial records from state and federal courts .
“It’s like saying, ‘We shouldn’t drive because some people get into accidents,’” Blandi said.
It is unclear how many states allow remote public access to court proceedings – and to what extent. According to a 2017 survey by the Council for Court Excellence, respondents in 21 states said they provided some form of electronic access, including 18 that provided court records and several that provided party filings, opinions, orders and judgments.
Some courts and lawyers are using artificial intelligence technology to help with drafting tasks, but it’s “not a silver bullet,” says Jannet Okazaki of the National Center for State Courts. It takes a lot of human training to help the machine learn to recognize what information needs to be redacted. It does make the job faster, though, she said.
Another consideration is cost. In a plea on behalf of Maryland’s court administrator in the case brought by the Courthouse News Service, attorneys said the implementation of an electronic “press queue” system — where members of the media could have immediate access to newly filed complaints — would at least would cost $108,000 per year. . They mentioned Tyler Technologies, a vendor that serves Maryland’s e-filing system.
But electronic court projects don’t always have to be outsourced. Minnesota’s recent transition to remote access was handled internally, with existing staff and no outside vendors, said Kyle Christopherson, a communications specialist for Minnesota courts.
Document costs can also be a transparency barrier. In Maryland, copies of court documents cost $0.50 per page. The Council for Court Excellence study found that states that operated their own systems with court staff typically did not charge document fees, while the opposite was true for those that hired vendors.
When court records are free, it also increases privacy because lawyers will be more careful about editing them, argues Mike Lissner of the Free Law Project.
“If you have a system that has some degree of ambiguity and some degree of privacy, lawyers are going to think it’s private, and they’re going to edit poorly,” he said.
There’s another problem with making public court cases difficult to access, Cuillier says: a wider “knowledge gap” between those who have the resources and knowledge to maneuver through the courthouse, and those who don’t.
“The fact is that a public record is a public record,” he said, “and it is time for the courts to recognize the value of people being able to easily communicate with their government.”
———
